3 ms·

I hear what you're saying. I'm gradually arriving at a model of "good book" that includes what a person's particular transgressions of suspensions of disbelief

by ethbro 9y ago

I hear what you're saying. I'm gradually arriving at a model of "good book" that includes what a person's particular transgressions of suspensions of disbelief are, and what degree is required to trigger them. For me, the biggest things are currently "must be at least this hard sci-fi" and "must have believably human characters." It sounds like one of yours is "must have book-spanning world-building." Which I get, but don't think bothers me as much. I expect the unexplored deus ex machina will probably irk me when it shows up though! Though maybe not, I think a large part of my enjoyment of Dune is the somewhat orthagonal-to-Western world-building. Although the Islamic religious echoes are ham-fisted and shallow sometimes, it's still refreshing to even read something attempting it. By my memory, Ender's didn't mull over consequences nearly as much as Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, & Children of the Mind. It was more "Oh my god, this was horrible" and less "We did a horrible thing, so what do we do now? And how does that inform our reactions the next time we're presented with the same choice?" Side note: if you ever want to read something laughably bad, especially for how modern it is, read one of the Honor Harrington books from David Weber. I tapped out after 20 pages.

keenerd 9y ago
Maybe world building is the wrong term? I consider civilizations, economics, infrastructure, etc, as another character in the story. They have background and develop over time. They should be as believable as the humans. This is common in the "future history" sub-genre but you find unexpected gems too. Discworld was remarkably good about it, for example. Just found my copy of Ender's, one of the few OSC books I still have. I got the proportions very wrong. The story was "over" on page 295 of 324. So like 9%, the entire last chapter, was about the aftermath. Mostly Ender dealing with what happened. Still way more than the usual "happily ever after" and sequel hook you normally see, to give it credit. The Honorverse is the purest of space opera. I have too many good memories to agree with you, but I won't push my luck with a re-reading. I seem to recall that it actually was pretty good at having their magic super weapons, drives and shields progress reasonably over the series. Weber was very good about having military tactics shift in step with the technology.
- ethbro 9y ago
  That's a more detailed way of putting what you're looking for. And I enjoy books like that as well (e.g. A Song of Ice of Fire). Incidentally, how'd you feel about KSR's Mars books, if you've read them? But I guess I forced myself to read enough Golden Age sci-fi that I developed a neurotic category for lazy... "deep worlds"? I'm looking at you and Foundation, Asimov. So much of that stuff is a splash of human-esque characters and plot on an otherwise naked thought puzzle that I feel like it deserves its own category. I suppose it irks me less when I feel like the author did that not because they couldn't do otherwise, but because they intentionally didn't care to. Which is to say, the thought puzzle interested them more than the characters. I feel the same about Lost. JJ Abrams doesn't give a damn about solving mysteries. He just likes creating them. Not liking him for not solving them is like not liking a dog because it wags its tail. That's a valid preference against tail wagging... but maybe not dogs for such a person? And I really wouldn't chance a reread. I started reading it because I'd heard good things about the tech. Let good memories lie. The lines that did me in were something to the effect of: "{Someone does a thing that makes Honor happy}. Honor felt happy because someone did a thing." (!!!)
  - keenerd 9y ago
    Mars was alright. I had a lot of trouble with one of the books. Took almost a year to read because it felt like there was nothing but political infighting in it. Foundation was actually what got me started on the "future histories" kick. The civilization is a more fleshed-out character than any human in the story. But I was eleven and didn't read any further than the original trilogy. My favorite golden-age sci-fi would probably be Heinlein's "The Past Through Tomorrow" collection. The parallels between Elon Musk and D. D. Harriman are amusing.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I love Heilein. To me, that's when sci-fi turned the corner and stopped being pulp and started being decent literature. I haven't read any Burroughs though. Always meaning to.

by ethbro 9y ago

keenerd 9y ago

Maybe world building is the wrong term? I consider civilizations, economics, infrastructure, etc, as another character in the story. They have background and develop over time. They should be as believable as the humans. This is common in the "future history" sub-genre but you find unexpected gems too. Discworld was remarkably good about it, for example. Just found my copy of Ender's, one of the few OSC books I still have. I got the proportions very wrong. The story was "over" on page 295 of 324. So like 9%, the entire last chapter, was about the aftermath. Mostly Ender dealing with what happened. Still way more than the usual "happily ever after" and sequel hook you normally see, to give it credit. The Honorverse is the purest of space opera. I have too many good memories to agree with you, but I won't push my luck with a re-reading. I seem to recall that it actually was pretty good at having their magic super weapons, drives and shields progress reasonably over the series. Weber was very good about having military tactics shift in step with the technology.

ethbro 9y ago
That's a more detailed way of putting what you're looking for. And I enjoy books like that as well (e.g. A Song of Ice of Fire). Incidentally, how'd you feel about KSR's Mars books, if you've read them? But I guess I forced myself to read enough Golden Age sci-fi that I developed a neurotic category for lazy... "deep worlds"? I'm looking at you and Foundation, Asimov. So much of that stuff is a splash of human-esque characters and plot on an otherwise naked thought puzzle that I feel like it deserves its own category. I suppose it irks me less when I feel like the author did that not because they couldn't do otherwise, but because they intentionally didn't care to. Which is to say, the thought puzzle interested them more than the characters. I feel the same about Lost. JJ Abrams doesn't give a damn about solving mysteries. He just likes creating them. Not liking him for not solving them is like not liking a dog because it wags its tail. That's a valid preference against tail wagging... but maybe not dogs for such a person? And I really wouldn't chance a reread. I started reading it because I'd heard good things about the tech. Let good memories lie. The lines that did me in were something to the effect of: "{Someone does a thing that makes Honor happy}. Honor felt happy because someone did a thing." (!!!)
- keenerd 9y ago
  Mars was alright. I had a lot of trouble with one of the books. Took almost a year to read because it felt like there was nothing but political infighting in it. Foundation was actually what got me started on the "future histories" kick. The civilization is a more fleshed-out character than any human in the story. But I was eleven and didn't read any further than the original trilogy. My favorite golden-age sci-fi would probably be Heinlein's "The Past Through Tomorrow" collection. The parallels between Elon Musk and D. D. Harriman are amusing.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I love Heilein. To me, that's when sci-fi turned the corner and stopped being pulp and started being decent literature. I haven't read any Burroughs though. Always meaning to.